DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple speakers mention Elizabeth Miller's WaPo op-ed. I can't find it online. Are they referring to the article in which she was quoted or did she really write an op-ed that has for some reason now disappeared?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/dcs-parks-department-is-playing-for-the-wrong-team/2019/09/06/884e41c2-c808-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html

Miller is an excellent speaker. I kinda wish she was running for Jack Evans' seat instead of Kishan.

Thanks. It is completely un-Google-able. Agreed on Elizabeth. Her statement (which is the first time I've heard her speak) was incredible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more the Maret folks talk the less I believe them or like them.

Agreed, they’d be well served to shut the hell up at this point. Repeating their white savior story again and again (saving a field in disrepair, saving poor children) all the while having to hear how they own development companies and get appointments from mayors is just plain gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more the Maret folks talk the less I believe them or like them.

Agreed, they’d be well served to shut the hell up at this point. Repeating their white savior story again and again (saving a field in disrepair, saving poor children) all the while having to hear how they own development companies and get appointments from mayors is just plain gross.

They are so offended by the riff raff calling them out on their sneakiness!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marjo is now citing legal analysis related to the contract. This is actually the interesting part of the hearing. Her argument is that if the City backs out of the contract, the Council will be signaling that the city can not be relied to hold up other contracts.

Marjo claims that since the extension has been signed, it's a done deal. And yet they plead for the Council to not take action.

She is fundamentally right as a matter of contract law- the extension was agreed upon and executed by both parties.

The reason they are pleading with the Council is because they realize they have a major problem if DPR/DGS didn't follow regulations in how they review and approve contracts. If they did not, then the contract is void because DGS/DPR did not have the legal right to execute it. All agencies are granted the right to bind the District government to contracts if they follow the laws and regulations as passed by the Council. Would love to hear more about how the legal analysis was done and who signed off on it from OAG or the Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple speakers mention Elizabeth Miller's WaPo op-ed. I can't find it online. Are they referring to the article in which she was quoted or did she really write an op-ed that has for some reason now disappeared?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/dcs-parks-department-is-playing-for-the-wrong-team/2019/09/06/884e41c2-c808-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html

Miller is an excellent speaker. I kinda wish she was running for Jack Evans' seat instead of Kishan.

Thanks. It is completely un-Google-able. Agreed on Elizabeth. Her statement (which is the first time I've heard her speak) was incredible.

Just re-read the op-ed. It's absolutely fine. Funny how they complain about her lying about them when they are the ones lying about her lying about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marjo is now citing legal analysis related to the contract. This is actually the interesting part of the hearing. Her argument is that if the City backs out of the contract, the Council will be signaling that the city can not be relied to hold up other contracts.

Marjo claims that since the extension has been signed, it's a done deal. And yet they plead for the Council to not take action.

She is fundamentally right as a matter of contract law- the extension was agreed upon and executed by both parties.

The reason they are pleading with the Council is because they realize they have a major problem if DPR/DGS didn't follow regulations in how they review and approve contracts. If they did not, then the contract is void because DGS/DPR did not have the legal right to execute it. All agencies are granted the right to bind the District government to contracts if they follow the laws and regulations as passed by the Council. Would love to hear more about how the legal analysis was done and who signed off on it from OAG or the Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel.

I believe Marjo was citing legal analysis from Maret's lawyers; nothing from the District.

And I completely agree with your argument as it relates to the legality of the contract between Maret and DPR/DGS. Based on my reading of the DC Code as it relates to procurement and public-private partnerships, this contract appears to be completely illegal and not compliant with DC laws and regulations. This is likely going to court and Maret will lose. It will be interesting to see if AG Racine sues, or if Hardy parents will need to initiate litigation. I'd also like to see if Bowser has District lawyers defend the contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more the Maret folks talk the less I believe them or like them.

Agreed, they’d be well served to shut the hell up at this point. Repeating their white savior story again and again (saving a field in disrepair, saving poor children) all the while having to hear how they own development companies and get appointments from mayors is just plain gross.

They are so offended by the riff raff calling them out on their sneakiness!

Their spin machine is out of control. What does their Horizons program have to do with this? “We do some good works (that give us good spotlights in our annual report and a group of people we can trot out for hearings like this) so don’t fight us on this sneaky deal”. I don’t need to hear that they don’t like the rhetoric. They need to recognize that they have a bad guy role in this sad situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marjo is now citing legal analysis related to the contract. This is actually the interesting part of the hearing. Her argument is that if the City backs out of the contract, the Council will be signaling that the city can not be relied to hold up other contracts.

Marjo claims that since the extension has been signed, it's a done deal. And yet they plead for the Council to not take action.

She is fundamentally right as a matter of contract law- the extension was agreed upon and executed by both parties.

The reason they are pleading with the Council is because they realize they have a major problem if DPR/DGS didn't follow regulations in how they review and approve contracts. If they did not, then the contract is void because DGS/DPR did not have the legal right to execute it. All agencies are granted the right to bind the District government to contracts if they follow the laws and regulations as passed by the Council. Would love to hear more about how the legal analysis was done and who signed off on it from OAG or the Mayor's Office of Legal Counsel.

I believe Marjo was citing legal analysis from Maret's lawyers; nothing from the District.

And I completely agree with your argument as it relates to the legality of the contract between Maret and DPR/DGS. Based on my reading of the DC Code as it relates to procurement and public-private partnerships, this contract appears to be completely illegal and not compliant with DC laws and regulations. This is likely going to court and Maret will lose. It will be interesting to see if AG Racine sues, or if Hardy parents will need to initiate litigation. I'd also like to see if Bowser has District lawyers defend the contract.

I doubt Racine will sue- I don't see how OAG can sue the District government when it is their responsibility to defend the District government in all legal matters. Which is why OAG usually does a legal analysis of all contracts to ensure that they meet District law and are thus valid. A big part of that analysis is ensuring that all statutory requirements have been met. That analysis should absolutely be provided by DPR/DGS to the Council. I am very much wondering if it wasn't actually done in this case.

[Anonymous]

When is Matt Damon scheduled to appear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is Matt Damon scheduled to appear?

Totally what I thought too when “shooter” or “scooter” testified earlier. I really hope squee making a showing.

[Anonymous]

These testimonies certainly have an aura of the Stepford Wives. They are all structured in the same way and hit the same talking points. The Maret PR team has been earning its keep.

[Anonymous]

The lines I am hearing over and over from the Maret parents: "misinformation" and "expectations".

Not one thus far has discussed the text of the original contract, for good reason from their perspective. No one who entered into that original contract should reasonably have an expectation of it being a "20 year deal" if the option to extend was solely at the District's discretion.

[Anonymous]

They seem to become more and more sullen with each person from Maret speaking. It is as if they realize their scripts sound so similar and therefore come across as inauthentic IMO and even as hypocritical as they chose Hardy as their punching bag and not accurately stating that there are other nonprofits / public schools who have all expressed interest in the after school time. If that time isn’t so valuable - why won’t Maret use Jelleff during evening hours exclusively?

[Anonymous]

Maret: "We're such nice people, but we're so much better than you all and we hate you so much!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maret: "We're such nice people, but we're so much better than you all and we hate you so much!"

I am on the side of potentially further limiting, not eliminating Maret use, but I don't hear that at all in the testimony being given.